thinning, fire and forest restoration

THINNING, FIRE AND FOREST RESTORATIONA SCIENCE-BASED APPROACH FOR NATIONAL FORESTS

IN THE INTERIOR NORTHWEST

by RICK BROWN

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFEWASHINGTON D.C. • WEST LINN, OREGON

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSJames Agee, Greg Aplet, Evan Frost, Lizzie Grossman, Peter Morrison, Reed Noss, DavePerry, Jolie Pollet, Bruce Taylor, and Phil Weatherspoon generously and thoughtfullyreviewed earlier drafts of this paper and offered suggestions and comments that have sub-stantially improved the final product. I am very grateful for their assistance, and I retainfull responsibility for any remaining errors and flaws.

AUTHORRick Brown, senior resource specialist, Defenders of [email protected]

PROJECT MANAGERBruce Taylor, Director, Oregon Biodiversity Program, Defenders of Wildlife

PRODUCTIONKassandra Stirling, media production specialist, Defenders of Wildlife

IMAGESPen and ink drawings by Christine HoldenCover photograph by Rick BrownMap images by the Oregon Biodiversity Partnership

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFENational Headquarters1101 14th Street NW, Suite 1400Washington D.C. 20005202.682.9400www.defenders.org

WEST COAST OFFICE1880 Willamette Falls Drive, Suite 200West Linn, Oregon 97068503.697.3222www.biodiversitypartners.org

ABOUT DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFEDefenders of Wildlife is a leading nonprofit conservation organization recognized as oneof the nation’s most progressive advocates for wildlife and biodiversity conservation. TheWest Coast Office emphasizes alternative approaches to environmental decision-makingthrough partnerships that engage a broad spectrum of participants in processes that helppeople with divergent interests find common ground and constructive solutions.

© 2000 by Defenders of Wildlife

2nd printing July 2001, 3rd printing October 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THINNING, FIRE AND FOREST RESTORATION: A SCIENCE-BASED APPROACH

Foreword ..............................................................................................

Introduction .........................................................................................

The Setting ...........................................................................................

Forest Types and Conditions ....................................................................

Restoration Goals and Priorities ................................................................

Restoration Treatments ...........................................................................

In Conclusion ........................................................................................

References ............................................................................................

5

7

11

13

17

21

30

32

5

FOREWORD

When we asked Rick Brown in the summer of 2000 to write a paper on the appropriate

uses of fire and thinning in forest restoration, we expected the final product to be of

interest primarily to Defenders of Wildlife and the small circle of interests involved in the

Lakeview Sustainability Initiative in Lake County, Oregon.

Defenders was one of several national conservation organizations involved in the commu-

nity-based effort to chart a new direction for the Fremont National Forest's Lakeview

Sustained Yield Unit. Rick, then an independent consultant, was tracking the process for

the Wilderness Society. With forest restoration emerging as the primary focus of the

Lakeview initiative, we asked Rick to spend some

time exploring the scientific basis for active

management techniques such as thinning and

prescribed fire.

Shortly after we contracted with Rick to write this

paper, the summer fire season blew up with an

intensity matched only by the inflammatory polit-

ical rhetoric the fires provoked. As the smoke cleared, we saw a much broader audience for

a more thoughtful examination of some of these issues. Coincidentally, we also had the

opportunity to recruit Rick to join the staff of Defenders' West Coast Office.

We are pleased to be able to share Rick Brown's timely distillation of these complex issues,

and consider ourselves doubly fortunate to have Rick with us. We hope this publication will

help set the stage for an ecologically sound approach to forest restoration on the public lands

of the interior Northwest.


by BRUCE TAYLORDirector, Oregon Biodiversity Program Defenders of WildlifeWest Linn, Oregon

6

White-headed woodpeckerby Christine Holden

Much of the National Forest landscape

in the interior Northwest has been

transformed, especially dry, low-elevation

forests dominated by ponderosa pine. These

changes began in the second half of the 19th

century with the introduction of livestock

grazing. Beginning in the late 19th century

and accelerating after World War II,

selective logging of old fire-resistant trees,

extensive road-building to facilitate logging,

fire exclusion, and livestock grazing

continued trends of forest and watershed

degradation. These trends have dramatically

altered many forest habitats, especially those

supporting species associated with older

forests. These management activities have

often led to the growth of smaller, less fire-

resistant trees in denser stands that can

allow the spread of more damaging fires

across more of the landscape, to the detri-

ment of habitat, watershed function and the

well-being of people whose homes are adja-

cent to National Forest lands. Roads have

severely disrupted hydrologic conditions,

and livestock grazing has extensively

affected riparian (streamside) ecosystems,

degrading water quality and aquatic habitats

and contributing to the decline of many

species of fish and other aquatic life.

Invasive exotic plants (noxious weeds) have

invaded extensive areas, degrading both

terrestrial habitats and watershed integrity.

The Forest Service now needs to reverse

these trends if legal requirements to main-

tain biological diversity and water quality

are to be met while maintaining the land's

productive capacity (ICBEMP 2000, USDA

Forest Service 2000c).

7


INTRODUCTION

Beginning in the late 19th century and

accelerating after World War II, selective logging

of old fire-resistant trees, extensive road-building

to facilitate logging, fire exclusion, and livestock

grazing continued trends of forest and

watershed degradation.

While these problems can appear daunting,

methods to address many of them are being

developed and refined. Unfortunately,

progress lags behind potential for a host of

reasons including institutional inertia,

commercial pressures, inter-agency

conflicts, budgetary limitations, and a lack

of political will. One key impediment is the

need for a strategic approach that could

make more effective use of limited

resources. Ecological problems are perva-

sive, and in one sense, restorative actions

taken almost anywhere would provide some

benefit. In light of the risk of loss of popu-

lations and species of fish and wildlife, the

needs of local human communities, and the

limited resources available for restoration

efforts, what is needed are strategically

focused, integrated approaches that will get

maximum benefits for a given cost while

minimizing unintended adverse effects

(Agee 1996a, Finney 2001, Rieman et al.

2000). Focusing treatments in high priority

watersheds while integrating aquatic, terres-

trial and socio-economic considerations

should increase the probability of success of

restoration (ICBEMP 2000, Rieman et al.

2000). There will always be some tension

between the need to be strategic and the

need to act; a good strategy effectively and

promptly implemented will be preferable to

a perfect one that is never fully developed

or put into practice.

Neither haste nor hesitation is acceptable.

Millions of acres in the interior Northwest

could use some form of treatment (including

rest from past and ongoing abuses) if we

are to avoid adverse effects on wildlife, fish

and human communities. Problems 150

years in the making will take many decades

to correct. The needs are great and our

knowledge is adequate to begin the task, but

the gaps in our knowledge are so substantial

that these tasks must be approached with

humility and a commitment to learn from

both our successes and mistakes.

There is considerable debate about both the

extent and nature of human-caused changes

in the forest landscape, and the need and

means to address those changes. In

focusing on issues relating to forest alter-

ation and restoration in the interior

Northwest, this paper is a modest attempt to

find what Ruggiero and others (2000)

describe as the "middle ground between

demanding certainty and embracing

opinion." I will attempt to explore the

scientific basis for what we appear to know,

how we might proceed, and what we need to

learn. This is neither an exhaustive review

of the literature, nor an attempt to address

all issues related to forest restoration.

Rather, it is an attempt to review the most

pertinent scientific literature, merge these

findings with policy requirements, and

8


provide recommendations on how best to

proceed. Qualitative judgment will

inevitably be involved, and what follows

should be viewed as general principles,

considerations, or rules-of-thumb.

A NOTE ON LANGUAGE

As is often the case, some of the debate over

forest restoration is more about language

than substance. Apparently simple and

straightforward words such as "forest",

"thin", and "fire" encompass a wide range of

conditions or activities and often connote

vastly different things to different people.

Forests in the interior Northwest range from

dry, low-elevation ponderosa pine to cold,

moist, high-elevation forests of subalpine fir

and Englemann spruce. Thinning can

describe practices ranging from light

removal of small understory trees to heavy

removal of dominant overstory trees. Fires

vary from "cool" surface fires to severe,

stand-replacing crown fires. These imper-

fections of language are compounded by a

form of labeling fallacy and a seemingly

ineluctable (albeit specious) logic that takes

the form of "thinning is logging, and

logging means timber sales, and since

timber sales have created existing problems,

thinning will only make things worse." It is

inarguably true that conventional logging

practices have contributed (and still do

contribute) substantially to degradation of

forest habitats and increased risk of destruc-

tive fires (Agee 1993, 1997b; Agee et al.

2000; Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995;

Weatherspoon 1996; Skinner and Chang

1996; Huff et al. 1995; SNEP 1996; Graham

et al. 1999; Stephens 1998, Franklin et al.

2000). Such reasoning, however, does little

to shed light on the possible efficacy of

understory thinning undertaken to meet

explicit restoration objectives.

9


10


Pygmy nuthatchby Christine Holden

The complexity of the forests of the

inland Northwest beggars simple

description. Common classifications and

descriptions are based on the tree species

that comprise the forest (or those that might,

given enough time without disturbance)

(Agee 1996b); the physical environments

forests occupy; or fire regimes, particularly

those characteristic of pre-Euro-American-

settlement times (Brown 2000, Arno 2000).

(Regimes describe the key variables of

frequency, predictability, extent, magnitude,

synergism, and timing of fire [Agee 1993].)

For instance, warm, dry environments are

generally dominated by forests of ponderosa

pine that historically supported frequent (at

average intervals of less than 25 years),

low-intensity fires that burned understory

vegetation, but seldom burned in tree

crowns or killed mature trees. With

increasing elevation, where average temper-

atures are cooler and precipitation greater,

tree species such as grand fir and white fir

play an increasingly important role, and

intervals between fires tended to be longer

and more variable. The effects of fire could

range from underburns similar to those in

ponderosa pine, to stand-replacing crown

fires. At still higher elevations, cold, moist

environments support forests that are apt to

be comprised of subalpine fir and

Englemann spruce, where average times

between fires might range up to several

hundred years, with a high probability of

stand-replacing effects.

These generalizations are complicated by a

variety of factors. South and west-facing

11


THE SETTING

Generalizations are complicated by a variety

of factors. Species distributions sort out

independently, blurring the lines humans

would like to apply to delineate

clear forest zones and types.

slopes tend to be warmer and drier and

therefore support stands more typical of

lower elevations, while forests characteristic

of higher elevations tend to extend lower on

north and east-facing slopes. Each tree

species has a range of environmental

circumstances under which it can become

established and grow. Species distributions

sort out independently, blurring the lines

humans would like to apply to delineate

clear forest zones and types. While burning

by Native Americans interacted with fire

patterns resulting from lightning (Agee

1999b), establishing different fire regimes

and thus different vegetation, the extent and

influence of such burning is difficult to

determine (Vale 2002). Climate varies, with

a key example being the several hundred-

year period of cooler, wetter weather known

as the Little Ice Age, which drew to a close

around the time of Euro-American settle-

ment in the mid-1800s. Many trees still

living were established during the Little Ice

Age, but the same species might be unlikely

to become established under current condi-

tions (Millar and Woolfenden 1999).

Shorter-term fluctuations in climate can lead

to sharp variations in fire characteristics or

regeneration and survival of trees.

12


Notwithstanding the complexities

described in the previous section, and

at the risk of over-simplification, there are

some useful generalizations that can be

applied to forests and the changes they have

undergone.

DRY FORESTS

Dry forests of ponderosa pine (occasionally

Douglas-fir) were shaped by what is some-

times referred to as a "stand-maintenance"

fire regime of low-severity, frequent fires

that generally burned grasses, brush, small

trees, and fallen needles and branches, but

had little effect on older trees with thick

insulating bark. Death of lower branches

from shading or the effects of fire raised the

bottom of the canopy to the point where it

was not adversely affected by typical fires.

Periodically, small groups of older trees

were killed by bark beetles and, often after

falling, would be consumed by fire. This

would leave exposed mineral soil and an

opening in the canopy, ideal conditions for

establishment of a group of young pine

trees. This cohort of trees would be thinned

by competition, insects, disease, and fire as

they grew older, eventually replacing the

patch of older trees that previously occupied

the site. This dynamic would repeat across

the landscape, producing extensive stands of

large old trees that appeared even-aged but

were actually comprised of many patches of

trees of different ages (Weaver 1943). The

clearing effects of fire produced the classic

"park-like" stands of old-growth pine

described by early settlers. These open

13


FOREST TYPES AND CONDITIONS

The clearing effects of fire produced the classic

"park-like" stands of old-growth pine described

by early settlers. These open forests of large old

trees provide prime habitat for birds such as the

white-headed woodpecker and pygmy nuthatch.

14

forests of large old trees provide prime

habitat for birds such as the white-headed

woodpecker and pygmy nuthatch (Marshall

1997, Wisdom et al 2000). In extremely hot

and dry weather, fires would tend to cover a

larger area but still were unlikely to kill

overstory trees (Agee 1997b).

While some areas still resemble historic

conditions, it is these dry-site forests of

ponderosa pine that typically have been

changed the most by human activities in the

last 150 years. Livestock grazing depleted

the fine fuels that carried the light, frequent

fires, while their hooves exposed mineral

soil seedbeds for young ponderosa pine

(Swetnam et al. 1999, Belsky and

Blumenthal 1997, Miller and Rose 1999).

Fire suppression, beginning after 1910 and

becoming effective around 1940, allowed

far more of these trees to persist, while

logging removed most of the large old trees

(Biswell et al. 1973). These forests may

now have been deprived of ten or more

natural fire cycles. The result is forests that,

due to continuing fire suppression, tend to

burn less frequently, but when they do burn,

the fire is much more likely to reach the

forest canopy and spread as a crown fire,

killing many or all of the overstory trees. A

historically low-severity fire regime has

turned into a high-severity or mixed-severity

fire regime, a change that has occurred over

millions of acres in the Interior Columbia

River Basin (Morgan et al. 1996, Hann et al.

1997). These higher-severity fires are more

apt to have detrimental effects on soils and

watersheds, as well as wildlife habitat.

They can also have serious implications for

humans who have chosen to settle in and

around these forests.

MOIST FORESTS

Mid-elevation forests are more difficult to

describe in general terms. Cooler, moister

conditions allow less drought- and fire-

tolerant species such as grand fir and white

fir, as well as Douglas-fir, western larch and

ponderosa pine, to grow in these areas. In

some areas these sites support ponderosa

pine-dominated stands that appear similar to

the drier forests at lower elevations,

although their fire histories may be more

complex and variable over long time periods

(Shinneman and Baker 1997, Brown et al.

1999, Veblen et al. 2000). With fire exclu-

sion, fir trees can eventually dominate these

sites. Where fires were less frequent (up to

200 years or more apart) due to differences

in moisture, terrain, lightning or Indian

burning practices, more of the other tree

species would be present, producing mixed-

conifer forests that experienced a fire

regime that can also be described as

"mixed." Fires could range from low to

high severity, depending on the interval


15

between fires (and thus the accumulation of

woody fuel), the weather conditions when

the fire burned, and topography. Fires of

differing severity can occur in close prox-

imity, creating a complex mosaic of forest

structures in patches of varying size (Taylor

and Skinner 1998).

Fire can damage or kill trees through effects

on the cambium (the growing portion of the

tree that lies beneath the bark), roots, or

foliage (Agee 1993, Ryan and Rheinhart

1988, Peterson and Ryan 1986). Each

species of tree has different vulnerabilities

to fire, which can vary on different sites

(some soils cause roots to be more shallow

and thus more at risk of lethal heating), and

at different times of year (ponderosa pine

roots apparently are more vulnerable to a

spring burn than one in the fall) (Swezy and

Agee 1991). The interactions of terrain, fire

and tree species historically produced a

mosaic of stand conditions and wildlife

habitat that would shift across the landscape

over time. In general, older mixed-conifer

forests were structurally complex, with

multiple canopy layers and abundant dead

standing trees (snags) and logs.

These moist mid-elevation forests, which

tend to be the most productive in the interior

Northwest, have been heavily altered by

logging and road-building. Timber extrac-

tion has depleted older forests and generally

reduced the presence of large trees, snags

and logs, which are key habitat elements for

many species of wildlife, such as goshawk,

American marten, Vaux's swift and pileated

woodpecker (Wisdom et al. 2000, Bull and

Hohman 1993, Bull and others 1992, 1997).

Fire suppression has generally been effec-

tive for one to four fire cycles, and has

allowed the development of denser, multi-

storied forests on more of the landscape.

While the fire regime can still be described

as mixed, the relative proportion of fire

types has shifted, and severe fires are more

likely to occur on more of the landscape

than they would have historically

(Anonymous 1999).

COLD FORESTS

At still higher elevations, forests of

subalpine fir, Englemann spruce, mountain

hemlock and lodgepole pine predominated.


Fire suppression has generally been effective for

one to four fire cycles, and has allowed the

development of denser, multi-storied forests on

more of the landscape. While the fire regime can

still be described as mixed, the relative

proportion of fire types has shifted, and severe

fires are more likely to occur on more of the

landscape than they would have historically.

These forests are slower growing, but cool,

moist conditions generally caused signifi-

cant fires to be infrequent, allowing devel-

opment of dense forests of fire-sensitive

trees. At periods averaging a few hundred

years, extreme drought conditions would

prime these forests for large, severe fires

that would tend to set the forest back to an

early successional stage, with a large carry-

over of dead trees as a legacy of snags and

logs in the regenerating forest. The fire

regime for these forests can be described as

"weather dominated" in that high fuel load-

ings are typical and the fire events that

determine forest patterns occur under

uncommon, extreme weather conditions that

can result in stand-replacing fires over large

areas (Agee 1997b). While logging and

road building have had some detrimental

effects on these forests, the fundamental

dynamics are relatively little-changed

because fire suppression has been effective

for less than one natural fire cycle. Fuel

levels may suggest a high fire "hazard"

under conventional assessments, but what

most needs to be considered are the ecolog-

ical consequences of wildfire, which are apt

to be low in these settings.

16


17


RESTORATION GOALS AND PRIORITIES

The foregoing brief review of the

changes that have occurred in forests

and watersheds of the inland Northwest

leads to the question of what to do about

these changes. There appears to be broad

agreement that some form and degree of

restoration — of habitats, populations of

fish and wildlife, productivity of soils,

watershed integrity, disturbance patterns —

is appropriate (ICBEMP 2000, USDA Forest

Service 2000c, Weatherspoon and Skinner in

press). However, there is less than full

agreement on the objectives of restoration

and the best means to achieve those

objectives.

One commonly suggested approach is to

restore landscapes to some semblance of

presettlement conditions, or their "historic

range of variability." Advocates presume

that stands and landscapes like those of the

past will provide conditions more likely to

support healthy populations of wildlife and

fish. Not only would habitats be more like

those to which species had adapted over

thousands of years, but disturbance

processes (fire, insects and disease, floods,

landslides) could operate more sustainably

in a more resilient landscape. A consensus

seems to be emerging that while knowledge

of historical conditions will be very useful,

or even essential, in guiding restoration

efforts, attempts to strictly recreate condi-

tions of the past will often be neither desir-

able nor feasible (Chang 1996, Christensen

1988, Gregory 1997, Hessburg et al. 1999,

Landres et al. 1999, Millar and Woolfenden

1999, Moore et al. 1999, Swanson et al.

1994, Tiedemann et al. 2000).

While knowledge of historical conditions

will be useful, even essential, in guiding

restoration efforts, attempts to strictly

recreate conditions of the past will

often be neither desirable nor feasible.

Knowledge of historic conditions can help

clarify the types and extent of changes that

have occurred in ecosystems, and help

inform the identification of management

objectives and restoration priorities

(Hessburg et al. 1999). However, climates

are now different than at any historic time,

and will be different in the future (Millar

and Woolfenden 1999). Species have been

irrevocably added and subtracted, and the

modern human imprint cannot be entirely

eliminated. Historical reconstructions can

provide good estimates of the large tree

component of past forests, but are less reli-

able for small trees or other ecosystem

elements such as herbaceous vegetation or

wildlife (Harrod et al. 1999, Fule et al

1997). While past fire regimes may be

more accurately estimated than forest struc-

ture and composition (Stephenson 1999), as

Agee (1998b) points out, "the natural fire

regimes of the past are not the regimes of

the present, nor will they be the regimes of

the future." Nonetheless, careful determina-

tions of past conditions (for example,

Harrod et al. 1999, Fule et al. 1997) can be

an essential part of deciding what needs to

be done. Planning also needs to recognize

that conditions other than historic (or

"natural") may need to be maintained in

order to provide essential habitat for at-risk

wildlife until such time as suitable habitat

can be restored more broadly on the

landscape (Wisdom et al. 2000, ICBEMP

2000).

Determination of restoration goals also

needs to recognize potential conflicts or

trade-offs among reasonable objectives.

Aggressively modifying stands to be highly

resistant to severe fire may unintentionally

degrade watersheds and habitats for fish and

wildlife (Rieman and Clayton 1997,

Gresswell 1999). While thinning of

co-dominant trees may contribute to restora-

tion of more open stand conditions in some

areas, such thinning requires careful

consideration of potential unintended

consequences. Opening the canopy can

exacerbate some fire risks by encouraging

the growth of grass and exposing the forest

to the drying effects of sun and wind (van

Wagtendonk 1996, Weatherspoon 1996,

Agee et al. 2000).

18


Effective communication across traditional

disciplinary boundaries will be essential. Too

often, discussions are framed in terms of forest

health, fire risk and hazard, insect and disease

potential, conserving wildlife or fish habitat, or

hydrologic condition. The concept that shows the

greatest promise for encompassing all these

concerns, and more, is ecological integrity.

Higher wind speeds also contribute to more

intense fire behavior. Conversely, thinning

may increase growth of forbs and shrubs,

which can retain moisture until later in the

season, reducing fire behavior (Agee 2000).

Heavily thinning stands to reduce canopy

density and to lower the risk of spreading

crown fire may degrade habitat for wildlife

needing more closed-forest conditions.

Excessive ground disturbance can also

degrade soil quality, watershed integrity and

aquatic habitats. Notwithstanding these

various conflicts and trade-offs, complemen-

tary objectives are also possible. Since

roads are usually the principal source of

degradation of aquatic habitats and are also

closely linked to the logging and fire

suppression that have degraded terrestrial

systems, needs for active management to

improve both watershed and forest integrity

are apt to coincide (Rieman et al 2000, Lee

et al. 1997). Watershed analysis should

provide a mechanism for identifying and

resolving potential conflicts among

objectives.

Effective communication across traditional

disciplinary boundaries will be essential.

Too often, discussions are framed in terms

of forest health, fire risk and hazard, insect

and disease potential, conserving wildlife or

fish habitat, or hydrologic condition. The

concept that shows the greatest promise for

encompassing all these concerns, and more,

is ecological integrity (Angermeier and Karr

1994). As the Society of American

Foresters (1993) put it, "The essence of

maintaining ecosystem integrity is to retain

the health and resilience of systems so they

can accommodate short-term stresses and

adapt to long-term change. The key

elements include: maintenance of biological

diversity and soil fertility; conservation of

genetic variation and its dispersal; and

through evolution, future biological diver-

sity." The essential components of ecolog-

ical integrity are the same as those that have

been described as basic to ecosystem

sustainability: soils, water, species diversity

(habitat), resistance to disturbance and

evolutionary potential (Perry 1998).

19


20

Flammulated owlby Christine Holden

Ecological restoration efforts are often

categorized as either active or passive.

While this can be a useful distinction, the

term "passive restoration" suffers from

potential confusion with "passive

management," which some people consider

equivalent (at least in some circumstances)

to mere neglect or inattention to the needs

of the land (Agee 2002). Passive restora-

tion, properly applied, is not at all indif-

ferent or unthinking, but rather should be

the result of thoughtful analysis and careful

decision-making. Passive restoration is the

"cessation of . . . activities that are causing

degradation or preventing recovery,"

(Kauffman et al. 1997) and can be consid-

ered the first step in restoration (National

Research Council 1996). Passive restoration

primarily involves allowing vegetation or

other organisms to restore desirable ecolog-

ical conditions, but can also include

allowing wildfires to burn under certain

conditions as “prescribed natural fire.” One

particularly appealing example is the

benefits than can quickly accrue if riparian

vegetation is allowed to recover sufficiently

to support beavers, which can then accom-

plish a great deal of additional restoration

work at no cost (Kauffman et al. 1997).

The primary active restoration techniques to

be considered here are thinning and

prescribed fire, although many other active

treatments, including closure and oblitera-

tion of roads, control of off-road vehicles,

improved livestock management, in-stream

21


RESTORATION TREATMENTS

The primary active restoration techniques

considered here are thinning and prescribed fire,

although other active treatments, including

closure and obliteration of roads, control of

off-road vehicles, improved livestock manage-

ment, in-stream work and noxious weed control,

will need to be employed for comprehensive

forest and watershed restoration.

work, and noxious weed control, will need

to be employed for comprehensive forest

and watershed restoration. Restoration

approaches that focus excessively on

thinning will not be considered credible by

large portions of the public.

For the purposes of the following discus-

sion, "thinning" refers to "understory

thinning," "thinning from below" or "low

thinning" to describe the cutting and

removal of small trees that may be

necessary to meet objectives for restoration

of habitat and fire regimes. The majority of

these trees will be too small to have

commercial value by conventional stan-

dards, but efforts are underway around the

West to develop processing methods and

markets for ever-smaller material. One way

or another, some thinned trees may have

commercial value that can appropriately be

captured as a by-product of restoration

activities (Noss 2000). However, removal

of large, pre-settlement trees solely to

provide a commercial product is apt to

undermine credibility of restoration efforts

while degrading wildlife habitat and exacer-

bating fire risk (Weatherspoon and Skinner

1995, Agee 1997b). Restoration thinning

may appropriately include the removal of

dead trees. However, "salvage" logging,

founded on a purely commercial premise,

often with truncated environmental

considerations and its own peculiar funding

imperatives, should not be expected to

provide restoration benefits. Through

damage to soils and the removal of large

trees, snags and logs, salvage is almost

certain to degrade ecological integrity,

particularly after fire (Beschta et al. 1995,

McIver and Starr 2000). Unsalvaged young

forests, developing with a full abundance of

snags and logs, may be the most depleted

forest habitat type in regional landscapes

(Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002).

Restoration objectives may be accomplished

by prescribed fire alone in some forest types

and conditions (Agee and Huff 1986,

Biswell 1989, Anonymous 1999,

Weatherspoon 1996). Thinning, although it

may successfully reduce fire hazard, is very

unlikely to meet ecological objectives unless

it is combined with prescribed fire

(Weatherspoon 1996). Thinning cannot

replicate many of the beneficial ecological

effects of fire (Weatherspoon and Skinner in

press, National Research Council 1999).

Thinning can also lead to more severe fires

(Agee 1996a, Graham et al. 1999,

Weatherspoon 1996), especially if logging

slash is not adequately treated. On the other

hand, prescribed fire, if applied too broadly

and simplistically, can also tend to homoge-

nize the landscape and have detrimental

effects on wildlife habitat and nutrient avail-

ability (Tiedemann et al. 2000). Widespread

prescribed fire can also cause public

22


resistance due to effects on air quality.

Neither thinning nor fire will be a panacea;

both must be used, but used thoughtfully.

Nothing will make forests fireproof, but it

appears feasible to make some forests more

"fire safe," in that they will have species

composition, age structure and fuel levels

such that crown fires are unlikely to begin

or spread (Agee 1996a).

Prioritizing restoration efforts can make

effective use of limited resources and can

provide a means to build experience and

credibility by focusing on areas that are

most likely to provide benefits while

presenting low risk of degradation of

ecological values. Priorities can be guided

by considering watershed and aquatic

values, forest characteristics, and human

values at risk (Rieman and Clayton 1997,

Rieman et al. 2000, Lee et al. 1997).

The high value of water, the widespread

degradation of watersheds, and the

prevalence of at-risk populations of fish

require that these values receive special

consideration in forest management

decisions, including forest restoration.

Strategies for conserving both aquatic and

terrestrial resources at multiple scales are

based on similar principles: secure areas

with high ecological integrity ("anchor habi-

tats"), extend these areas, and connect them

at the landscape level (Lee et al. 1997,

Gresswell 1999). An approach that simulta-

neously considers the condition of a water-

shed and its associated forests, and the

status of aquatic populations (Rieman et al.

2000) appears to offer the best prospects for

balancing potentially competing objectives.

Simplistic assumptions that what's good for

the forest will be good for watersheds and

fish will not suffice. Successful forest

restoration may help improve watershed

resilience and thus aquatic habitats, but

active forest restoration carries a risk of

further degrading watersheds, especially if it

involves road construction or other soil

disturbance (Gresswell 1999, Lee et al.

1997). Healthy fish populations can be

quite resilient to the effects of wildfire

(Gresswell 1999). Most often, healthy

populations are associated with roadless or

Wilderness areas and cool moist forests that

have been relatively little affected by

logging and fire suppression (Lee et al.

1997, Rieman et al. 2000). Prescribed fire

(ignited either by humans or lightning) may

be the best means of managing and restoring

these areas (Rieman et al. 2000).

23


Neither thinning nor fire will be a panacea; both

must be used, but used thoughtfully. Nothing

will make forests fireproof,

but it appears feasible to make some

forests more "fire safe."

Active restoration involving both thinning

and prescribed fire may be more appropriate

in heavily roaded, lower elevation forests

and in areas adjacent to more intact water-

sheds (Lee et al. 1997).

Riparian areas provide habitat benefits for

wildlife far out of proportion to these

streamside areas' relatively limited distribu-

tion on the landscape—most notably for

migratory birds (Marcot et al. 1997).

Riparian areas and the vegetation they

support are also essential to the quality of

water and aquatic habitats and contribute

many functions to ecosystem integrity

(Kauffman et al. 1997, Gregory 1997,

National Research Council 1996). Logging

in riparian areas can cause ground distur-

bance resulting in sediment delivery to

streams, as well as reduce shade and input

of large wood to streams, thus degrading

aquatic habitat. Riparian areas and their

relationship to broader landscapes are highly

complex, as are the risks of wildfire, which

may be the same, less or greater than in

adjacent uplands (Agee 1999a). While pre-

commercial thinning may have some appli-

cation in riparian areas (Gregory 1997),

restoration treatments should initially focus

on uplands (Johnson et al. 1995, Lee et al.

1997). Commercial thinning can usually be

avoided in riparian areas. If commercial-

sized trees need to be cut, they can be left

on the floodplain or placed in the stream

channel (Gregory 1997). Prescribed fire,

carefully applied based on site-specific

analysis, may be the most appropriate treat-

ment in riparian areas (Agee 1999a,

Kauffman et al. 1997).

Decisions about the use of thinning as an

element of forest restoration must be based

on local conditions and analysis that

considers current and historical stand

conditions, landscape context, watershed

integrity, status of fish and wildlife

populations, and many other variables.

Nonetheless, some general principles and

guidelines can be proposed, based largely on

the broad categorization of forest types and

fire regimes discussed above. Although

anecdotal evidence, computer modeling and

common sense provide considerable support

for the premise that thinning can reduce fire

risk and restore habitat, there is precious

little empirical scientific research on the

subject (Pollet and Omi 2002, Omi and

Martinson 2002, Stephens 1998, van

Wagtendonk 1996), and humility and

caution should be the order of the day. This

24


Decisions about the use of thinning as an

element of forest restoration must be based on

local conditions and analysis that considers

current and historical conditions, landscape

context, watershed integrity, status of fish and

wildlife populations and other variables.

caveat is especially appropriate when

attempting to extrapolate stand-level infor-

mation to landscape scales (Agee 1997a).

Thinning for restoration does not appear to

be appropriate in higher elevation, cold,

moist forests (Agee and Huff 1986). These

forests have often not yet missed a full fire

cycle and the historic dynamic of generally

high fuel loadings and a fire regime charac-

terized by weather-dominated, lethal fires

has not changed significantly. Efforts to

manipulate stand structures to reduce fire

risk are apt not only to be futile (Agee

1996a, 1998a), but may also move systems

away from presettlement conditions to the

detriment of wildlife and watersheds

(Johnson et al. 1995, Weatherspoon 1996).

Low elevation, dry forests appear to offer

the clearest opportunities for thinning — in

conjunction with prescribed fire — to

contribute to restoration of wildlife habitat

while making forests more resistant to

uncharacteristically severe fire (Miller and

Urban 2000). For reducing fire risk, the

priorities are to reduce surface and ladder

fuels and raise the bottom of the live canopy

(Agee et al. 2000, van Wagtendonk 1996).

Thinning is most apt to be appropriate

where understory trees are sufficiently

large or dense that attempts to kill them with

fire would run a high risk of also killing

overstory trees (Christensen 1988,

Stephenson 1999, Fule et al. 1997, Moore et

al. 1999, Arno et al. 1997). Using

prescribed fire alone can be desirable in that

it provides the full range of ecological

effects of fire. However, fire is an imprecise

tool and a chainsaw or harvester can provide

much more control over which trees are

actually killed (Thomas and Agee 1986,

Swezy and Agee 1990, Anonymous 1999,

Pollet 1999, Fiedler 1996, Sackett et al.

1995). The larger understory trees that are

less likely to be safely thinned with fire are

more apt to be large enough to have

economic value if they are logged. This

presents opportunities to defray expenses

while providing employment and wood

products, as well as risks that economic

pressures will bias decisions about which

trees to cut and thus undermine the credi-

bility of restoration. Even where understory

trees can safely be thinned with fire, consid-

eration will need to be given to potential

smoke production and soil heating during

subsequent burns that will be necessary to

consume the dead understory trees

25


Although anecdotal evidence, computer

modeling and common sense provide considerable

support for the premise that thinning can

reduce fire risk and restore habitat, there is

precious little empirical scientific research on the

subject and humility and caution

should be the order of the day.

once they fall to the ground (Agee 1997a,

Anonymous 1999).

One potential problem with understory

thinning operations is that the low value of

the wood being removed encourages the use

of low-cost logging methods. This typically

means ground-based equipment, which can

have seriously detrimental effects on soils.

As Perry (1994) states, "the importance of

soil to forest productivity and health cannot

be overstated." Soil is not only the

fundamental source of productivity of

terrestrial systems, but also strongly

influences hydrologic function and water

quality. Soil compaction, which can take

decades to recover (Harvey et al. 1989),

both reduces plant growth and inhibits infil-

tration of water, increasing erosion, sedi-

mentation and spring run-off. Fire can also

adversely affect soils, but these effects are

relatively short-lived (Rieman and Clayton

1997), and should not be presumed to give

license to unnecessarily degrade soils during

thinning operations. To maintain both

ecological integrity and management credi-

bility, it will be essential to employ low-

impact equipment and use it properly

(Johnson et al. 1995). Establishing

standards to keep soil compaction,

disturbance, and puddling to less than 10%

of an activity area, and monitoring to ensure

that these standards are met would be a

significant, yet feasible, improvement over

past practices. Standards should also be

applied to protect steep, unstable, or highly

erosive slopes.

The adverse ecological effects of roads are

legion (Furniss et al. 1991, Noss and

Cooperrider 1994, Trombulak and Frissell

2000, Jones et al. 2000, Rieman and Clayton

1997, Ercelawn 1999). Road construction to

access thinning sites is highly unlikely to be

justified either ecologically or economically.

Limitations on road construction and other

soil disturbance will also help limit the

spread of invasive exotic plants (noxious

weeds) (Hann et al. 1997, Parendes and

Jones 2000). In the interest of getting

necessary work done, most restoration

effort can be focused on already roaded

portions of the landscape, where controversy

is less and there is no shortage of stands

appropriate for treatment. However, some

undeveloped, roadless or protected areas, if

they clearly suffer reduced ecological

integrity and risk of uncharacteristically

severe fire as a result of fire exclusion, may

require active management. Thoughtful,

"light touch" restoration practices, generally

emphasizing prescribed fire with minimal

necessary thinning and no road construction,

may be appropriate to maintain these

26


important areas as reservoirs of biological

diversity and ecological baselines (Noss

1999).

Within the dry forest zone, high forest

integrity will generally be associated with

the presence of old-growth trees, especially

ponderosa pine. Highest priority should be

given to securing high-integrity "anchor

habitats" that still closely resemble historic

conditions, which can be maintained with

prescribed fire alone. Adjacent areas that

have developed dense post-settlement

understories, especially if they have remnant

old trees, are apt to be a priority for restora-

tion treatment with thinning and/or fire to

help reduce the likelihood of crown fire

spreading into the high integrity stands.

Treatment of these areas could help to

secure the remnant intact stands from wild-

fire risks while extending more natural stand

conditions across the landscape, eventually

connecting high-integrity areas. In general,

protection of remnant old-growth pine, from

stands to individual trees, should be a top

priority, in light of how depleted these trees

have become and their importance not only

as habitat but also as genetic and scientific

resources (Henjum et al. 1994, Wickman

1992). On the other hand, reproduction

of ponderosa pine is infrequent and

unpredictable (White 1985), and care should

be taken, at the landscape scale, to retain

some patches of young pine trees in an

approximation of historic patterns.

Mid-seral ponderosa pine stands (roughly 60

to 100 years old) may represent a secondary

priority for restoration treatments. These

stands are often well on the way to

developing old-growth characteristics, and

treatments to help ensure that this trend is

maintained can increase the probability that

old-growth habitats are restored more

quickly than they would be otherwise.

Thinning to remove smaller trees can reduce

the risk of fire spreading into the canopy,

while improving the growth rate of

remaining trees. Variable density thinning

can help mimic the clumped distribution and

associated processes found in pre-settlement

stands (Harrod et al. 1999, Franklin et al.

1997). Processes other than fire,

particularly sources of mortality such as

bark beetles, which are a key food source

for woodpeckers and influence subsequent

27


Highest priority should be given to securing

high-integrity "anchor habitats" that still closely

resemble historic conditions, which can be

maintained with prescribed fire alone.

decay of snags (George and Zack in press,

Samman and Logen 2000), should be

provided for at the landscape level.

The mixed conifer zone presents some of

the greatest complexities in determining

where it will be appropriate to apply thin-

ning and/or fire. Changes following decades

of fire exclusion will often mean that re-

introduction of fire without thinning will be

problematic (Agee and Huff 1986, Swezy

and Agee 1990). Given the considerable

variability within this zone, local assessment

of pre-settlement stand conditions may be

particularly important. However, careful

consideration must also be given to existing

conditions, especially the context of stands

at landscape scales. Whereas in dry forest

types habitat objectives and fire regime

objectives are apt to coincide, they may

conflict in portions of the mixed conifer

zone, at least in the short term. Past

management practices may have led to

development of old-growth stands with

"unnatural" multiple canopy layers or accu-

mulations of snags and logs, but these areas

may provide key habitat that compensates

for loss and degradation of these habitat

elements elsewhere (Wisdom et al. 2000,

ICBEMP 2000). Often, it may be

appropriate to attempt to secure such

habitats from wildfire by treating adjacent

areas (Agee 1996a, 1998a). Attention

should be given to protecting large and old

trees. For eastern Oregon and Washington,

Henjum and others (1994) recommended

protecting trees either 20 inches or greater

in diameter, or more than 150 years old.

Large fir trees, especially those with heart-

wood decay, provide important habitat for

many species (Bull and Hohman 1993; Bull

et al. 1992, 1997), and efforts to "cleanse"

the landscape of fir should be avoided.

Strategic location of fuel treatments may

slow the spread of fire across the landscape

(Agee 1999a, Finney 2001, Finney et al. in

press), but this concept has been explored

only in computer models, and will need

refinement before being extensively applied.

All in all, these complexities appear to

recommend a cautious approach to restora-

tion efforts in the mixed-conifer zone. The

wildland-urban interface or "intermix zone"

is often not very precisely defined

28


Perhaps the most important consideration

regarding efforts to make the interface zone

fire safe is that treatment of public forestlands

alone will not be enough.

but generally describes areas where human

housing intermingles with mostly forested

land. The dramatic fires of the 2002 fire

season have put the interface zone fully in

the national public eye. Growing political

attention, although tardy and prone to

misdirection, may be appropriate. Not only

are human property and lives at risk, but the

interface zone most typically occurs in the

dry forest types that are most amenable to

restoration efforts combining mechanical

treatments and prescribed fire. The pres-

ence of people, their developments, and

their pets mean that habitat values are

already somewhat compromised, reducing

the severity of some of the unintended

consequences that may accompany

restoration efforts. On the other hand, the

close proximity of people can complicate

prescribed burning programs. Perhaps the

most important consideration regarding

efforts to make the interface zone fire-safe is

that treatment of public forestlands alone

will not be enough. The crucial area —

within 100 or 200 feet of structures — is

most apt to be private land, and even here,

vegetation treatment alone will not suffice

(Cohen 2000). Structures must be built or

retrofitted to incorporate fire-safe elements

such as non-combustible or fire-resistant

roofs and tempered glass windows. Human

values at risk may suggest that the interface

zone is a priority for attention, but without

investment in these structural modifications,

public investment in forest treatment is

virtually pointless.

29


30


IN CONCLUSION

While there is much to be learned

about the current status of forested

ecosystems on National Forest lands and

about the efficacy of thinning and prescribed

fire to make these forests more sustainable,

it appears clear that action must be taken to

reverse trends of degradation, and that thin-

ning and fire can play a role in these restora-

tion efforts. Because thinning is a form of

logging, and because prescribed fire can

produce excessive smoke, runs the risk of

escape, and appears to contradict decades of

Smokey Bear's education about the evils of

forest fires, both techniques will be contro-

versial with at least some portions of the

public. Every effort should be made to

apply these tools thoughtfully, in ways and

in locations where they will have the highest

prospects for success and the lowest likeli-

hood of unintended consequences. Based

on current knowledge, it appears that the

most credible efforts will:

• Be part of comprehensive ecosystem and

watershed restoration that addresses

roads, livestock grazing, invasive exotic

species, off-road vehicles, etc.

• Consider landscape context, including

watershed condition and populations, as

well as habitats, of fish and wildlife;

• Address causes of degradation, not just

symptoms;

• Provide timber only as a by-product of

primary restoration objectives;

• Avoid construction of new roads;

• Be based on local assessment of

pre-settlement conditions;

• Take place in dry forest types;

31


• Use fire as a restoration treatment,

either alone or following thinning;

• Treat thinning slash and other surface

fuels (preferably with fire);

• Retain all large, old (pre-settlement)

trees and large snags, and provide for

their replacement over time;

• Have negligible adverse effects on soils;

• Address other vegetation in addition to

trees, including noxious weeds;

• Incorporate monitoring as an essential

element and cost of the project;

• Learn from monitoring and adapt

management accordingly.

It may not be feasible to fully address all of

these considerations for every treatment, but

managers who focus their attention on areas

where these criteria can be met will have

greater prospects for building the experience

and credibility that will allow greater discre-

tion in the future. It will also be essential to

acknowledge how little empirical scientific

study supports assumptions of the efficacy

of thinning to restore habitat and reduce fire

risk. While additional scientific research is

necessary, much can also be learned from

routine monitoring, especially if it is struc-

tured to reflect a more consistent case

studies approach (Shrader-Frechette and

McCoy 1993), which could be facilitated by

regional guidance from Forest Service

research stations. Support within the Forest

Service and from the Congress for research,

administrative studies and monitoring will

be crucial to refining techniques and

building public trust. As much as scientific

knowledge, that trust must form the basis

for successful action.

32


REFERENCES

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Agee, J.K. 1994. Fire and Weather Disturbances in Terrestrial Ecosystems of the Eastern Cascades.

USDA Forest Service PNW Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-320.

Agee, J.K. 1996a. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. Presented at the 17th Annual Forest

Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA, January 16-18, 1996.

Agee, J.K. 1996b. Fire in the Blue Mountains: A history, ecology and research agenda, in Jaindl, R.G. and

T.M. Quigley, eds. Seach for a Solution. American Forests, Washington D.C.

Agee, J.K. 1997a. Fire Management for the 21st Century, in Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin, eds., Creating

a Forestry for the 21st Century. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Agee, J.K. 1997b. The severe weather wildfire - too hot to handle? Northwest Science 71:153-156.

Agee, J.K. 1998a. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science, Vol. 72

Special Issue.

Agee, J.K. 1998b. The ecological role of fire in pine forests. Pages 193-218 in Richardson, D. M., ed.

Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Agee, J.K. 1999a. A coarse-filter strategy. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 14 (1):15-19.

Agee, J.K. 1999b. Fire Effects on Landscape Fragmentation in Interior West Forests, in Rochelle, J., L.

Lehman and J. Wisniewski, eds. Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife Management Implications. Brill,

Leiden, The Netherlands.

Agee, J. K. 2000. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington. Personal communication.

Agee, J. K. 2002. The fallacy of passive management. Conservation in Practice 3(1): 18-25.

Agee, J.K., B. Bahro, M. A Finney, P. N. Omi, D. B. Sapsis, C. N. Skinner, J. W. van Wagtendonk, C. P.

Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and

Management 127 (2000):55-66.

Agee, J.K. and M.H. Huff. 1986. Structure and process goals for vegetation in wilderness areas. Pages

17-25 in Lucas, R.C. compiler. Proceedings -- National wilderness research conference: current

research , 23-26 July 1985, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. USDA Forest Service General Technical

33


Report INT-212.

Amaranthus, M.P, J.M. Trappe and D.A Perry. 1989. Long-term productivity and the living soil. Pages 36-

52 in D.A. Perry, R. Meurisse, B. Thomas, R. Miller, J. Boyle, J. Means, C.R. Perry, and R.F. Powers,

eds. Maintaining Long-term Productivity of Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems. Timber Press,

Portland, OR.

Angermeier, P. L. and J. R. Karr. 1994. Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives.

BioScience 44:690-697.

Anonymous [Fire Ecologist]. 1999. Review of the Wenatchee National Forest's Dry Forest Strategy and Its

Application to the Sand EIS. Review facilitated by Hessburg, P.F. and J.F. Lehmkuhl, USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Wenatchee, WA.

Arno, S.F., H.Y. Smith and M.A. Krebs. 1997. Old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand struc-

ture: influences of pre-1900 fires and fire exclusion. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station Research Paper INT-RP-495.

Arno, S.F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. Chapter 5 in Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of

Fire on Flora. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report

RMRS-GTR-42 volume 2.

Belsky, A. J. and D.M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of Livestock Grazing on Stand Dynamics and Soils in

Upland Forests of the Interior West. Conservation Biology, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 315-327.

Beschta, R.L., C.A. Frissell, R. Gresswell, R. Hauer, J.R. Karr, G.W. Minshall, D.A. Perry, J.J. Rhodes.

1995. Wildfire and salvage logging: recommendations for ecologically sound post-fire salvage logging

and other post-fire treatments on federal lands in the West. Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR.

Biswell, H.H. 1989. Prescribed Burning in California Wildlands Vegetation Management. University of

California Press, Berkeley.

Biswell, H.H., H.R. Kallander, R. Komarek, R.J. Vogl and H. Weaver. 1973. Ponderosa Fire Management.

Tall Timbers Research Station Miscellaneous Publication 2. Tallahassee, Florida: Tall Timbers

Research Station.

Brown, J.K. 2000. Introduction and fire regimes in Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42

volume 2.

Brown, P.M., M.R. Kaufmann, and W.D. Shepperd. 1999. Long-term, landscape patterns of past fire

events in a montane ponderosa pine forest of central Colorado. Landscape Ecol. 14:513-532.

Bull, E.L. and J.E. Hohman. 1993. The association between Vaux's swifts and old growth forest in north-

eastern Oregon. Western Birds. 24(1):38-42.

Bull, E.L., R.S. Holthausen and M.G. Henjum. 1992. Roost trees used by pileated woodpeckers in north-

eastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(4):786-793.

34


Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks and T.R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the Interior

Columbia River Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-391. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station.

Portland, Oregon.

Chang, Chi-ru. 1996. Ecosystem responses to fire and variations in fire regimes in Sierra Nevada

Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Vol. II Assessments and Scientific Basis for

Management Options. Water Resources Center Report No. 37. Davis: Centers for Water and

Wildland Resources, University of California; 1071-1099.

Christensen, N. L. 1988. Succession and Natural Disturbance: Paradigms, Problems, and Preservation

of Natural Ecosystems in Agee, J. K. and D. R. Johnson, eds., Ecosystem Management for Parks

and Wilderness. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Cohen, J. D. 2000. Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. Journal of

Forestry 98 (3):15-21.

Ercelawn, A. 1999. End of the Road: The adverse ecological impacts of roads and logging: a compila-

tion of independently reviewed research. Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA.

Fiedler, C.E. 1996. Silvicultural Applications: Restoring ecological structure and process in ponderosa

pine forests in Hardy, C.C. and S.F. Arno, eds. The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration. USDA Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-341.

Finney, M.A., D.B. Sapsis, B. Bahro. In Press. Use of FARSITE for simulating fire suppression and

analyzing fuel treatment economics, in Proceedings of the Fire in California Ecosystems:

Integrating Ecology, Prevention and Management, 17-20 November 1997, San Diego.

Finney, M. A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and

behavior. Forest Science 47(2):219-228.

Franklin, J.F., D.R. Berg, D.A. Thornburgh and J.C. Tappeiner. 1997. Alternative silvicultural

approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems in Kohm, K.A. and J.F.

Franklin, eds., Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Franklin, J.F., D.A. Perry, R. Noss, D. Montgomery and C. Frissell. 2000. Simplified Forest

Management to Achieve Watershed and Forest Health: A Critique. National Wildlife Federation,

Seattle, Washington.

Fule, P.Z., W.W. Covington and M.M. Moore. 1997. Determining reference conditions for ecosystem

management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecological Applications 7(3):895-908.

Furniss, M.J., Roelofs, T.D. and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance in Meehan, W.R..

ed. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats.

American Fisheries Society Special Pub. 19:297-323. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

35


George, T.L. and S. Zack. In Press. Spatial and Temporal Considerations in Restoring Habitat for

Wildlife. Restoration Ecology. (Paper presented at Society for Ecological Restoration annual

meeting, The Presidio, San Francisco, CA, September, 1999.)

Graham, Russell T., A. Harvey, T.B. Jain and J.R. Tonn. 1999. The Effects of Thinning and Similar

Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical

Report PNW-GTR-463.

Gregory, S.V. 1997. Riparian Management in the 21st Century in Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin, eds.,

Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Gresswell, R.E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North America. Trans.

Amer. Fish. Soc. 128:193-221.

Hall, F.C. 1974. Fire and vegetation in the Blue Mountains -- implications for land managers in

Proceedings Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, October 16-17, 1974. Tall Timbers

Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.

Hann, W.J., J.L. Jones, M.G. Karl, P.F. Hessburg, R.E. Keane, D.G. Long, J.P. Menakis, C.H. McNicoll,

S.G. Leonard, R.A. Gravenmier and B.G. Smith. 1997. Landscape Dynamics of the Basin, in

Quigley, T.M. and S. Arbelbide, tech. eds., An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the

Interior Columbia Basin. Volume II. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405.

Harrod, R.J., H.M. Bradner, and W.E. Hartl. 1999. Historical stand reconstruction in ponderosa pine

forests to guide silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology and Management 114:433-446.

Harvey, A.E., R.T. Meurisse, J.M. Geist, M.F. Jurgensen, G.I. McDonald, R.T. Graham, and N. Stark.

1989. Managing Productivity Processes in the Inland Northwest--Mixed Conifers and Pines in

Perry and others, eds., Maintaining the Long-Term Productivity of Pacific Northwest Forest

Ecosystems. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry, J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright, S.A. Beckwitt and E.

Beckwitt. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds: National

forests east of the Cascades crest, Oregon and Washington. The Wildlife Society Technical Review

94-2, Bethesda, MD. 245 pp.

Hessburg, P.F., G.B. Smith and R.B. Salter. 1999. Detecting change in forest spatial patterns from refer-

ence conditions. Ecological Applications 9:1232-1252.

Huff, M.H., R.D. Ottmar, E. Alvarado, R.E. Vihnanek, J.F. Lehmkuhl, P.F. Hessburg, and R.L. Everett.

1995. Historical and current landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: linking vegeta-

tion characteristics to potential fire behavior and related smoke production. USDA Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, PNW-GTR-355. Portland, Oregon.

36


Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). 2000. Interior Columbia Basin

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Boise, Idaho.

Johnson, K. N., J. Agee, R. Beschta, J. Beuter, S. Gregory, L. Kellogg, W. McComb, J. Sedell, T.

Schowalter and S. Tesch. 1995. Forest Health and Timber Harvest on National Forests in the Blue

Mountains of Oregon. A Report to Governor Kitzhaber.

Jones, J.A., F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple and K.U. Snyder. 2000. Effects of Roads on Hydrology,

Geomorphology, and Disturbance Patches in Stream Networks. Conservation Biology 14 (1):76-85.

Kauffman, J. Boone, R.L. Beschta, N. Otting and D. Lytjen. 1997. An Ecological Perspective of

Riparian and Stream Restoration in the Western United States. Fisheries, vol. 22, no. 5.

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts

in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9:1179-1188.

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow and J.E. Williams. 1997. Broadscale Assessment of

Aquatic Species and Habitats in Quigley, T.M. and S. Arbelbide, tech. eds., An Assessment of

Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin. Volume III. USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405.

Lindenmayer, D.B. and J.F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A comprehensive multi-

scaled approach. Island Press, Washington DC.

McIver, J.D. and L. Starr, technical editors. 2000. Environmental effects of postfire logging: literature

review and annotated bibliography. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station,

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-486, Portland, OR.

Marcot, B.G., M.A. Castellano, J.A. Christy, L.K. Croft, J.F. Lehmkuhl, R.H. Naney, R.E. Rostentreter,

R.E. Sandquist and E. Zieroth. 1997. Terrestrial Ecology Assessment in Quigley, T.M. and S.

Arbelbide, tech. eds., An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin.

Volume III. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-405.

Marshall, D.B. 1997. Status of the White-Headed Woodpecker in Oregon and Washington. Audubon

Society of Portland, Portland, Oregon.

Millar, C.I., and W.B. Woolfenden. 1999. The role of climate change in interpreting historical vari-

ability. Ecological Applications 9:1207-1216.

Miller, C. and D.L. Urban. 1999. A model of surface fire, climate and forest pattern in the Sierra

Nevada, California. Ecological Modelling 114:113-35.

Miller, C. And D.L. Urban. 2000. Modeling the effects of fire management alternatives on Sierra

Nevada mixed conifer forests. Ecological Applications 10(1):85-94.

Miller, R.F. and J.A. Rose. 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in sagebrush-steppe.

Journal of Range Management 52:550-559.

37


Moore, M.M., W.W. Covington and P.Z. Fule. 1999. Reference conditions and ecological restoration: a

southwestern ponderosa pine perspective. Ecological Applications 9:1266-1277.

Morgan, P., S. C. Bunting, A. E. Black, T. Merrill and S. Barrett. 1996. Fire regimes in the interior

Columbia River Basin: past and present. Final report for RJVA-INT-94913: Coarse-scale classifi-

cation and mapping of disturbance regimes in the Columbia River Basin. Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project.

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. Committee

on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids. National Academy

Press. Washington, DC.

National Research Council. 1999. Environmental Issues in Pacific Northwest Forest Management.

National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

Noss, R.F. 1999. A Citizen’s Guide to Ecosystem Management. Biodiversity Legal Foundation Special

Report. Boulder, Colorado. (Distributed as Wild Earth Special Paper #3)

Noss, R.F. 2000. Society for Conservation Biology comment letter on USDA Forest Service Roadless

Areas Protection Initiative.

Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and restoring biodiversity.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Omi, P.N. And E.J. Martinson. 2002. Effects of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Final report,

submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board.

Perendes, L.A. and J.A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic plant invasion

along roads and streams in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. Conservation Biology

14 (1):64-75.

Perry, D.A. 1994. Forest Ecosystems. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Perry, D.A. 1998. The Scientific Basis of Forestry. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29:435-66.

Peterson, D.L. and K.C. Ryan. 1986. Modeling post-fire conifer mortality for long-range planning.

Environmental Management 10:797-808.

Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 2000. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in

ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(1):1-10.

Rieman, B.E. and J. Clayton. 1997. Wildfire and native fish: issues of forest health of sensitive species.

Fisheries 22 (11):6-15.

Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, R.F. Thurow, P.F. Hessburg and J.R. Sedell. 2000. Toward an integrated clas-

sification of ecosystems: defining opportunities for managing fish and forest health.

Environmental Management 25(4):425-444.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk [and others]. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in

the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 pp.

38


Ryan, K.C. and E.D. Reinhardt. 1988. Predicting postfire mortality of seven western conifers.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18:1291-7.

Sackett, S.S., S.M. Haase and M.G. Harrington. 1996. Lessons learned from fire use for restoring

southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems in Covington, W. and P.K. Wagner, tech. coords.

Conference on adaptive ecosystem restoration and management: restoration of cordilleran conifer

landscapes of North America. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General

Technical Report RM-GTR-278.

Samman, S. and J. Logan, tech. eds. 2000. Assessment and response to bark beetle outbreaks in the

Rocky Mountain area. Report to Congress from Forest Health Protection, Washington Office,

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture and USDA Forest service, Rocky Mountain

research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-62.

Shinneman, D.J., and W.L. Baker. 1997. Nonequilibrium dynamics between catastrophic disturbances

and old-growth forests in ponderosa pine landscapes of the Black Hills. Conserv. Biol. 11:1276-

1288.

Shrader-Frechette, K.S. and E.D. McCoy. 1993. Method in Ecology: Strategies for conservation.

Cambridge University Press.

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). 1996. Status of the Sierra Nevada: Final Report to

Congress, Vol. I Assessment Summaries and Management Strategies. Wildland Resources Center

Report No. 36. UC Davis: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California.

Skinner, C. N., and Chi-ru Chang. 1996. Fire regimes, past and present in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem

Project: Final report to Congress. Chapter 38, Vol. II Assessments and Scientific Basis for

Management Options. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. Davis: Centers for Water and

Wildland Resources, University of California; 1041-1069.

Society of American Foresters. 1993. Task Force Report on Sustaining Long-Term Forest Health and

Productivity.

Stephens, S.L. 1998. Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and fuels treatments on potential fire

behaviour in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management 105:21-38.

Stephenson, N. L. 1996. Ecology and management of giant sequoia groves in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem

Project: final report to Congress, Volume II. Assessments and scientific basis for management

options. Wildlands Resources Center Report No. 37, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources,

University of California, Davis, California, USA.

Stephenson, N.L. 1999. Reference conditions for Giant Sequoia forest restoration: structure, process,

and precision. Ecological Applications 9: 1253-1265.

39


Swanson, F.J., J.A. Jones, D.O. Wallin and J.H. Cissel. 1994. Natural Variability--Implications for

Ecosystem Management in Jensen, M.E. and P.S Bourgeron, eds. Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health

Assessment, Vol. II: Ecosystem Management: Principles and Applications. USDA Forest PNW

Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-318.

Swetnam, T.W., C.D. Allen and J.L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the past to

manage the future. Ecological Applications 9:1189-1206.

Swezy, D.M. and J.K. Agee. 1991. Prescribed-fire effects on fine-root and tree mortality in old-

growth ponderosa pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 21:626-634.

Taylor, A.H. And C.N. Skinner. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional

reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology And Management 111(1998):285-

301.

Thomas, T.L. and J.K. Agee. 1986. Prescribed fire effects on mixed conifer forest structure at Crater

Lake, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 16:1082-7.

Tiedemann, A., J. Klemmedson, and E. Bull. 2000. Solution of Forest Health Problems with Prescribed

Fire: Are Forest Productivity and Wildlife at Risk? Forest Ecology and Management 127 (2000):1-

18.

Trombulak, S.C and C.A Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14 (1): 18-30.

USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. 2000a. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-

Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy. The Forest Service management response to the

General Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65, April 13, 2000.

USDA Forest Service, Region 5. 2000b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Project Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

USDA Forest Service, Region 5. 2000c. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Project Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): Appendix G Fire and Fuels.

Vale, T.R., editor. 2002. Fire, native peoples, and the natural landscape. Island Press, Washington DC.

van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a Deterministic Fire Growth Model to Test Fuel Treatments.

Pages 1155-1165 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol. II

Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Centers for Water and Wildland

Resources, University of California, Davis.

Veblen, T.T., T. Kitzberger, and J. Donnegan 2000. Climatic and human influences on fire regimes in

ponderosa pine forests in the Colorado Front Range. Ecol. Appl. 10:1178-1195.

You may also order publications by phoning Defenders at 503 / 697-3222

40


Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. Fire-silviculture relationships. Pages 1167-1176 in Sierra forests in Sierra

Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress. Chapter 44, Vol. II Assessments and

Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of California, Centers for Water and

Wildland Resources, Davis, California.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. In Press. An ecological comparison of fire and fire surrogates

for reducing wildfire hazard and improving forest health. Paper presented to: Fire in California

Ecosystems: Integrating ecology, prevention and management. November 17-20, Bahia Hotel, San

Diego, CA.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to tree

crowns from the 1987 wildfire in northern California. Forest Science 41:430-451.

Weaver, H. 1943. Fire as an ecological and silvicultural factor in the ponderosa pine region of the

Pacific slope. Journal of Forestry 41 (1):7-15.

Weaver, H. 1959. Ecological changes in the ponderosa pine forests of the Warm Springs Indian

Reservation. Journal of Forestry 57:15-20.

White, A.S. 1985. Presettlement regeneration patterns in a southwestern ponderosa pine stand. Ecology

66(2):589-594.

Wickman, B.E. 1992. Forest Health in the Blue Mountains: The influence of insects and disease.

USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-295.

Wisdom, M., R. Holthausen, B. Wales, D. Lee, C. Hargis, V. Saab, W. Hann, T. Rich, M. Rowland, W.

Murphy and M. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior

Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications. PNW Research Station

General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-485.

To order these Defenders of Wildlife publications, clip this order form and mail with your payment (check, money

order or purchase order) to DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE: 1880 WILLAMETTE FALLS DRIVE, SUITE 200, WEST LINN,

OREGON 97068.

Name: ___________________________________________ Affiliation: ______________________________

Address: _________________________________________ Phone: _________________________________

City/State/Zip: ____________________________________ Email: _________________________________

Oregon’s Living Landscape ($29.95). Number of copies: _____ Amount due: $__________

Stewardship Incentives ($10.00). Number of copies: _____ Amount due: $__________

Oregon Biodiversity Project CD-ROM ($16.00). Number of copies: _____ Amount due: $__________

Looking for the Big Picture (free). Number of copies: _____

Thinning, Fire, and Forest Restoration (free). Number of copies: _____

No Place for Nature (free) Number of copies: _____

Willamette Restoration CD-ROM (free) Number of copies: _____

A Place for Nature (free) Number of copies: _____

Washington Biodiversity Initiative (free) Number of copies: _____

ORDER FORM

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE PUBLICATIONS

OREGON’S LIVING LANDSCAPE: STRATEGIES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY. Full color atlas andnarrative of Oregon’s biological diversity (232 pages). $29.95

STEWARDSHIP INCENTIVES: CONSERVATION STRATEGIES FOR OREGON’S WORKING LANDSCAPE. Options for improvingstewardship across Oregon’s landscape (138 pages). $10.00. This report is also available on our web site (www.biodiversitypartners.org).

OREGON BIODIVERSITY PROJECT CD-ROM. Contains data sets used in the statewide biodiversity analysis. Also includesNatureMapping software for personal record-keeping of your own wildlife observations. $16.00

LOOKING FOR THE BIG PICTURE: THE PROCESS BEHIND THE OREGON BIODIVERSITY PROJECT. Describes the coopera-tive process behind the development of the Oregon Biodiversity Project and its products (27 pages). FREE. For bulkorders, postage may be charged. This report is also available on our web site (www.biodiversitypartners.org).

THINNING, FIRE AND FOREST RESTORATION: A SCIENCE-BASED APPROACH FOR NATIONAL FORESTS IN THE INTERIORNORTHWEST. By Rick Brown. FREE. For bulk orders, postage may be charged. This report is also available on our website (www.biodiversitypartners.org).

NO PLACE FOR NATURE: THE LIMITS OF OREGON’S LAND USE PLANNING PROGRAM IN PROTECTING FISH ANDWILDLIFE HABITAT IN THE WILLAMETTE BASIN. By Pam Wiley. FREE. For bulk orders, postage may be charged. Thisreport is also available on our web site (www.biodiversitypartners.org).

WASHINGTON BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE: A Feasibility Assessment. By Joe La Tourrette and B. Wayne Luscombe, Ph.D.FREE. For bulk orders, postage may be charged. This report is also available on our web site (www.biodiversitypart-ners.org).

WILLAMETTE RESTORATION STRATEGY CD-ROM. Contains Willamette Basin slide show, Habitat and Land Use Strategy,and other resources. FREE. For bulk orders, postage may be charged.

A PLACE FOR NATURE: WILLAMETTE BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PRIORITIES. A 20-page color booklet which introduces readers to the endangered habitats of the Willamette River Basin. FREE.

TOTAL DUE: $________

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rick Brown joined Defenders of Wildlife's West Coast Office as a seniorresource specialist in October 2000. Through his graduate

studies, his work for the U.S. Forest Service and the National Wildlife Federation, and most recently as a freelance biologist and

conservation advocate, Brown has spent more than 25 years working in and for the forests of the Pacific Northwest.

thinning, fire and forest restoration

Documents